COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW MAY BEGIN NEXT MONTH

Voters on June 30, 1970, laid the foundation for a new Volusia County government by approving a home-rule charter.

Now it's time to inspect that foundation to see how stable it is.

When county council members start the inspection process, possibly next month, by appointing a citizens' commission to review the charter government, they say they also are opening the doors to anyone who wants to make fundamental changes in the governmental structure.

And county residents who have been opposed to the charter since it took effect 14 years ago say they believe the review could lead to scrapping the current government.

A charter review could become a target for citizens' wrath against continually rising costs of government and could lead to a taxpayers' revolt, charter opponents say.

"The way it is set up, the county will always be a stacked deck against taxpayers," said John Gregory, a DeLand businessman who has campaigned against the charter.

Supporters say they have nothing to fear from the review. They say inflation over the last decade has forced the costs of all county governments to escalate.

If anything, a review will show that the county's home-rule powers lead to a more cost-effective government than in non-chartered counties, they say.

The charter replaced five county commissioners, who both set policies and ran the day-to-day operations of the government, with seven council members and an appointed staff. Council members set policies while the staff, under the guidance of a county manager, runs the daily operations.

Volusia's charter, which reorganized the entire government and abolished the elected office of tax collector, is unique among the 67 counties in Florida. Six other counties have home-rule charters, but none is similar to Volusia's.

Critics say the charter turns over to the hired manager powers that should be held by elected officials. They say the elected council is too distant from decisions on how the staff spends tax money.

Such complaints led the county's legislative delegation to order a review of the charter between 1975 and 1976. A citizens' commission appointed by the delegation spent about 18 months investigating governmental operations and proposing charter changes.

The charter itself requires such reviews at least once every 10 years. The council is supposed to appoint a citizens' commission no earlier than 18 months before the next general election.

That means the council could appoint a review commission next month. Within a year after its appointment, the commission is to present any proposed amendments to the county council.

Then the council will hold three public hearings on the amendments before placing them on the ballot for the next election, which will be in November 1986.

County Attorney Warren Tiller said it probably would be best to appoint the review commission as soon as possible to make sure the council has enough time to meet requirements for legally advertising any amendments.

Council members say they are considering who to appoint to the commission. They also are talking about what amendments they would like to see result from the review.

Some council members say they think there will be few significant changes. Others say they hope for some major alterations.

Among the changes being discussed are:

-- Turning elected officials into appointed department heads. Several council members say they may want to put an amendment on the ballot that would make the sheriff an appointed rather than elected official. They say the review commission also could investigate whether it would be more practical to have the county property appraiser and elections supervisor appointed by the council and county manager instead of elected.

-- Making the county auditor directly responsible to the council instead of the county manager. Some council members and several critics of the county government say that would provide an effective balance to the manager's administrative power.

-- Creating a section of the charter that guarantees environmental protection in land-use planning. Such a section has been written into the proposed charter for a consolidated city on the county's east coast. Members of environmental groups say they would like to see such guarantees extended throughout the county.

Two of those proposals -- appointing the sheriff and changing the status of the auditor -- have been placed on the ballot before but were rejected by voters. Last November, 62 percent of the voters said they did not want an appointed sheriff.

That margin of defeat is small enough to indicate public interest in appointing the sheriff, some council members say. They add that if the review commission finds merit in the proposal, support will grow.

"I say it's something to look at," said Councilman Jerry Doliner, who last year expressed skepticism about an appointed sheriff but agreed to put the amendment on the ballot. "That would be an important part of the review."

An almost identical proposal was approved last November in Sarasota County, one of the other six home-rule counties. Then, residents launched a petition drive to put the amendment back on the ballot for a special election. That election was held Feb. 5 and Sarasota County voters decided to return to an elected sheriff.

The result leaves Dade County, which has a charter that consolidated its government with that of the city of Miami, as the only county in the state with an appointed sheriff.

In Volusia County, the first charter review commission talked about an amendment that would have made the sheriff, elections supervisor and property appraiser appointed instead of elected officials. The proposal was dropped in the face of public hostility.

In 1980 and 1982 voters rejected an amendment that would have put the internal auditor under the council's control. Now, the auditor, like any other employee, is hired and fired by the manager.

Council members say that because one of the auditor's jobs is to investigate how well the manager's staff is working, there is a danger of a conflict of interest if the investigator remains responsible to the manager.

The charter already refers to environmental protection in a section that forbids the council from approving any land use that would lead to serious air, water or soil pollution.

Environmentalists say they want that section toughened with an amendment requiring the council to protect wetlands and other ecologically delicate areas from development. They also want the council to be prohibited from approving zoning changes that would lead to developments in strips along roads, scattered around rural areas or in isolated, densely populated pockets. It will be months before anyone will be able to tell whether such significant charter changes may come out of the review process, council members say.

Several members say they would like the commission to include citizens who served on both the group that drafted the original charter and the commission that inspected the government between 1975 and 1976.

That dismays opponents. They accuse the council of wanting to pack the commission with members who have a vested interest in supporting the current form of government.

"The last review commission, what did we get -- the same people who wrote the charter," said Danny Gainin, a member of the West Volusia Memorial Hospital Authority and a long-time critic of the county government. "Do you really believe it will be impartial this time?"

Council members say they want the commission to be staffed with members familiar with the workings of local government. They say they want a commission that will able to spot any deficiencies and propose changes.

The last review commission proposed dozens of changes in administrative opperations, most of which were adopted by the council. The commission also proposed eight charter amendments, six of which were approved by voters.

Those six amendments were mostly technical revisions to the charter, such as changing the title of the tax assessor to property appraiser.

One of the amendments which was defeated would have allowed council members to hold annual votes on whether to fire administrative department heads, a move designed to give the council more direct control over the staff.

The other amendment would have given council members a pay raise. Various versions of that amendment were put on the ballot four more times until last November, when voters approved a raise.